Protect Yourself!........Research Before You Sign Contracts Or Hire Service Companies..... Visit The "Research Services Offered" Topic For Info

Welcome to the Public Document Distributors forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Corren Chang Sued US Loan Auditors for wrongful termination and in violation of public policy (Whistle Blower)

Quote:

7. The Plaintiff's job duties as a an AccountExecutive/Fraud Investigator (sales representatives) consisted asa of calling customers from multiple sources that were providedto the Plaintiff by Defendant US Loan Auditors to attempt toenlist them into a contract to perform forensic loan auditing andto then enlist them into a contract for legal services with USLegal Advisors which was a branch of US Loan Auditors. This workwas a part of the regular business of US Loan Auditors. ThePlaintiff was instructed to enlist these customers into acontract with the other branch of Defendant Employer; US LegalAdvisors. Among the mandatory rules, procedures andrequirements, and/or characteristics of the Plaintiff's job werethe following:a. There were no special skills required for this salesposition;
b. All the Plaintiff's daily activities were.under the

direct control of her supervisor;

Quote:

u. US Loan Auditors had the ability to fire the sales20 reps; evinced by the fact that the Plaintiff was fired21 on October 9, 2009, because, she was informed by the22 principals, she was too aggressive in speaking up for

23 the customers who were being defrauded.

Quote:

11. The Plaintiff disclosed to the Defendant Employer whatshe reasonably believed were violations of state and/or federalstatutes, and/or noncompliance with state and/or federalregulations as follows:a. That there was improper/illegal acts between DefendantUS Loan and US Legal Advisors that were conflicts ininterest and detrimental to the customers;b. That fraud was being committed by Defendants againstthe customers of US Loan and US Legal Advisors on adaily basis;c. That Defendant US Loan was committing, and/orconspiring to commit with US Legal Advisors violationsof the prohibition of attorneys/non-attorneys sharingfees;

Quote:

d. That there were violations of Business & Professions

Code § 17200, et seq., and Penal Code § 484 (theft);2 e. That customers were charged fees and no work was done3 on their accounts;4 f. That excessive fees were charged to customers knowing5 that the promised work for these exorbitant fees would6 never be accomplished;7 g. That a disbarred attorney was providing legal advice;8 with at least one customer asserting that said9 disbarred attorney was this customers' attorney;10 h. That an attorney for US Loan Auditors was illegally11 asserting a property interest in a customer's property.12 I. That funds/money/assets were being illegally co-13 mingled; and,14 j. That other illegal and non-compliant activities were15 taking place on a daily basis.16 12. In retaliation for disclosing what she reasonably17 believed were violations of state and/or federal statutes and/or18 non-compliance with state and/or federal regulations, Chang was19 wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy on/about

DHI a Home loan company, Sued US Loan Auditors for Defamation and interference in relation to advertisements US Loan auditors was using to solicit for clients who may have been in default of their mortgages

Quote:

8 The Mailing was designed to appear as if it came from a government agency,with a supposed form number ("Form 008-1"), a layout and font similar to that used by federal

agencies including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban

Quote:

9 The Mailing listed "US Loan Auditors" as "Investigator," implying that aA competent authority had appointed it as such, qnd omitting Defendant US Loan Auditors LLC's5 corporate designation, to further mislead the recipients into believing that the notice was sent6 by a government entity Defendants' very names (US Loan Auditors and US Legal Advisors) are7 by their nature misleading, and their use in connection with this ruse was and is, upon8 information and belief, designed to mislead recipients of the Mailing and lend credibility to the

9 defamatory statements therein.

Quote:

The Mailing falsely and misleadmgly implies that Defendant US Loan Auditors is1 3 or was conducting an official investigation of DHI and that DHI engaged in predatory lending14 12 The Mailing, combined with Defendants' television advertisements, some of15 which are available on corporate Defendants' websites (http //www usloanouditors.com/ andi16 fiftp //www us/ega/aaV/sors com/), falsely communicate that certain of DHI's loan products,

1 7 such as adjustable rate mortgages, are by their nature predatory and therefore actionable

Quote:

Plaintiff is informed and believes that each Defendant, and all of them,knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to mislead and defraud the recipients of the Mailing, and to defame DHI

Quote:

DHI has diligently attempted to serve US Loan and US Legal through their agents for20 service of process on the State of California's Business Portal statements for Defendants.21 Despite its reasonable efforts and due diligence attempts to personally serve US Loan and US22 Legal, DHI has been unable to locate either agent for service of process, Mr. Pulvino for US23 Loan and Mr. Sandison for US Legal, at the address designated. When DHI attempted service24 on Mr. Pulvino, the current occupant informed DHI that Mr. Pulvino did not live there and the25 current occupant did not know who Mr. Pulvino was. There is no additional or different26 information provided for US Loan's agent for service of process. (Genshlea Decl. HH 6, 8.)27 Further, it appears that any additional efforts by DHI to serve US Legal at the designated address will continue to be futile due to Mr. Sandison's attempts to evade service given that, onmore than one occasion, there were lights on in the home and a car outside, but no one would

US Loan Auditors filed suit Nicholaus T'Souvas to compel his wage claims be arbitrated in private instead of the California State Labor Commissioner

Quote:

5. On or about January 12, 2010, T'Souvas filed an administrative wage claim

19 with the Labor Commissioner challenging US Loan Auditors' alleged failure to pay20 T'Souvas certain commissions. Proceeding before the Labor Commissioner is improper21 both because T'Souvas was an independent contractor not an employee, and because

22

T'Souvas is required to arbitrate this claim pursuant to Section 13 of the Contract. See23 Whaley Decl., Exhibit A, Section 13. Even if T'Souvas were an employee, by entering into24the predispute Contract that includes an arbitration clause that governs "any dispute arising25 out of" the Contract, a contract also governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§

^)f\ 1, et seq., T'Souvas waived his right to bring a claim before the Labor Commissioner

Quote:

promised rate of compensation of:Commissions of 50% of the upfront fees charged to borrowers less $695.00.

Commissions earned February 24, 2009 to July 3, 2009 at 50% of the upfront fees charged to borrowers less $695 00, claiming

Independent Contractor is to be compensated on a commission basis only. If the Indcpendent Contractor's efforts result in the client ordering a loan audit through US Loan Auditors and legal processing through US Legal Advisors, the commission shall be 50% of the up front fee charged to the borrower for The loan audit less administrative expenses (currently S695), to be paid within 30 days of the payment from the Client and clearing US Loan Auditor's account.

By way of example, if the audit fee was $2695. the resulting commission would equal $1000

USLA sued Robert Jackson for defamation and other causes for protesting in front of their company headquarters

Quote:

On, Wednesday, July 7,2010, Defendant again parked approximately 30025 yards adjacent to Plaintiffs property on the street at 9:00 a.m. and begin26 to harass Plaintiffs employees and customers. Defendant flagged down27 and pulled over new and old customers and talked about how "USLA is a

Cori Ann Stroud sued USLA and US Legal advisors for fraud and breach of contract

Quote:

Why does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff money? US Legal Advisors collected up front fees and provided no services. They were draft and file a federal lawsuit with in 2 weeks against my mortgage company with violations discovered from a forensic loan audit provided by their sister company US Loan Auditors. The company was misrepresented

Quote:

Why does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff money? Us Loan Auditors representitive stated they will provide an accurate and professional analysis of my loan scenario and loan documentation "a forensic loan audit" with a 100% money back guarantee. They misrepresented what my options, remedies, time frames, the company offers, expectations and the legal process was totally false. I was provided an incomplete/inaccurate loan audit.

James Holiday Sued US Loan Auditors for failing to pay for services rendered

Quote:

Why does the Defendant owe the Plaintiff money?

Ryan Easley, an employee of Fast Point Networking Solutions performed 23.5 hours of work and successfully completed the task of installing the Time Matters software, while he was their he also successfully repaired several other problems however Jeff Pulvino, owner of US Loan Auditors refuses to pay.